Cities & Health

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcah20

Social return on investment analysis of an urban

greenway

Ruth F. Hunter , Mary A.T. Dallat , Mark A. Tully , Leonie Heron , Ciaran
O’Neill & Frank Kee On Behalf of the PARC Study Research Team

To cite this article: Ruth F. Hunter , Mary A.T. Dallat , Mark A. Tully , Leonie Heron , Ciaran O’Neill
& Frank Kee On Behalf of the PARC Study Research Team (2020): Social return on investment
analysis of an urban greenway, Cities & Health, DOI: 10.1080/23748834.2020.1766783

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1766783

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

View supplementary material

Published online: 04 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 396

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcah20
CITIES & HEALTH
https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1766783

ORIGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

Social return on investment analysis of an urban greenway

Ruth F. Huntera, Mary A.T. Dallatb, Mark A. Tullyc, Leonie Herona, Ciaran O’Neilla and Frank Kee a
On Behalf of
the PARC Study Research Team
a
Institute of Clinical Sciences B, Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; bService Development,
Public Health Agency, Belfast, Northern Ireland; cInstitute of Mental Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Ulster University,
Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Evidence supports the multi-functional nature of urban green space, and so economic evaluations Received 17 December 2019
should have a broad lens in order to capture their full impact. Given the evidence for a range of Accepted 29 April 2020
health, wellbeing, social and environmental benefits of such interventions, we modelled the KEYWORDS
potential social return on investment of a new urban greenway intervention in Belfast, Northern Social return on investment;
Ireland. Areas that the greenway was purported to impact upon included: land and property economic evaluation; urban
values; flood alleviation; tourism; labour employment and productivity; quality of place; climate green space; natural
change; and, health. The most recent and applicable evidence pre-development of the greenway experiment
for each area was summarised to obtain an ‘effect estimate’; this was then applied to available data
for the greenway area and the impact estimated and monetised using various methods. To
calculate the Benefit Cost Ratio all seven monetary benefits were summed, for both a worst
case and best case scenario, and divided by the total investment cost. The Benefit Cost Ratio
ranged from 2.88 to 5.81 (i.e. for every £1.00 invested in the greenway, there would be £2.00–6.00
returned). This is one of the first studies to conduct a social return on investment of a new urban
greenway estimating the potential benefits.

Introduction Agenda (United Nations General Assembly 2016)

There is a compelling body of evidence demonstrating
the benefits of urban green space for health, including
physical (e.g. reduced weight, lower coronary heart dis-
ease), psychological (e.g. reduced stress indicators such
as lower concentrations of cortisol, lower pulse rate and
blood pressure, improved mental wellbeing), social
health (e.g. increased social cohesion) benefits (Kuo
2015, Gascon et al. 2016, WHO, 2016, 2017a, 2017b,
Frumkin et al. 2017, Twohig-Bennett and Jones 2018).
Initiatives to enhance the quantity and quality of green
spaces in towns and cities have gained momentum, as
seen in the rapid growth of pocket parks, green roofs,
green walls, greening of vacant lots, and disused rail-
ways developed into urban trails and greenways.
A parallel growth in the biophilic cities movement has
highlighted the benefits of daily contact with nature for
health and wellbeing (Beatley and Newman 2013).
As 70% of the world’s population is expected to live
in cities by 2050 (an approximate population of
10 billion people), our urban ecosystems need to be
reimagined to ensure, above all, they are sustainable
and can support a higher quality of life for their grow-
ing populations (United Nations General Assembly
2016, UN Sustainable Development Goals). Various
political frameworks underscore the need for green
spaces in our cities. For example, the New Urban
calls for an increase in safe, inclusive, accessible, high
quality green public spaces. Similarly, the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2015)
pledges to ‘provide universal access to safe, inclusive
and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular,
for women and children, older persons and persons
with disabilities’. However, in an increasingly urba-
nised world, our green spaces are under threat and
facing extensive competition, especially from housing
and transport demands. We know that economic argu-
ments are important in making the case for political
support for investments. Although the evidence base
for the health benefits of urban green space is strong,
the effectiveness of urban green space interventions
and their economic justification are much less well
researched and understood (Hunter et al. 2019).
A recent evidence review of the effectiveness of
urban green space interventions provides some support
for certain approaches, particularly for park-based
interventions that are coupled with social programmes
to encourage usage (Hunter et al. 2019). Various inter-
ventions were able to demonstrate positive environ-
mental outcomes (e.g. increased biodiversity), social
outcomes (e.g. reduction in crime; improvements in
perception of safety), and improved wellbeing (e.g.
reduction in stress) (Hunter et al. 2019). The authors

CONTACT Ruth F. Hunter ruth.hunter@qub.ac.uk Institute of Clinical Sciences B, Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Grosvenor
Road, Belfast BT12 6BJ, Northern Ireland
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 R. F. HUNTER ET AL.
argued that the full potential of urban green space
interventions has not been realised because most pre-
vious evaluations have adopted a uni-dimensional focus
on health or environmental outcomes, leading to
under-evaluation of the purported range of outcomes
and subsequently, the economic impact. Evidence sup-
ports the multi-functional nature of urban green space,
and so evaluations, including economic evaluations,
should have a broader lens than previously used, incor-
porating health, wellbeing, social, environmental and
economic outcomes. Indeed, it could be argued that all
of these can be thought of as economic outcomes, and
that because of market failure are not taken into con-
sideration when the value of urban green space is being
assessed and decisions around resource allocation are
being made, known as ‘externalities’. To that end, urban
green spaces might be thought of as public goods that
only government or philanthropy can provide.
Further, in the evidence review on urban green
space interventions, only four studies were identified
that investigated their economic impact (Hunter et al.
2019). All four studies (Cohen et al. 2012, 2013, 2014,
Bird et al. 2014) concluded that such interventions
were cost-effective. Cohen et al assessed the cost effec-
tiveness of park-based interventions (Cohen et al.
2012, 2013, 2014) based on physical activity levels of
users of the new park infrastructure using Metabolic
Equivalent of Task (MET)-hours/year. For example,
Cohen et al. (2012) calculated the cost-effectiveness
based on the changes observed in the intervention
parks over time, yielding a net gain of 1909 METS-
hours/year in the 12 parks or 159 METS-hours/year
per park. On average, a person gains one MET-hour
per 15 minutes of moderate-vigorous intensity physi-
cal activity (i.e. a brisk walk or run for 15 minutes).
A meta-analysis indicated an association between
METS gained and reduction in chronic disease risk
(Arem et al. 2015). For example, compared with adults
reporting no leisure time physical activity, the meta-
analysis observed a 20% lower mortality risk among
those undertaking less than the recommended mini-
mum of 7.5 METS per week (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.-
78–0.82]), a 31% lower risk at 1 to 2 times the
recommended minimum (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.67–
0.70]), and a 37% lower risk at 2 to 3 times the mini-
mum (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.62–0.65]). Significant
Benefit Cost Ratios (in a range of >4-1) were identified
by Bird et al. (2014) based on increased walking and
cycling levels after investing in 84 new or improved
urban trails around the UK. The study used the Health
Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) for modelling the
economic value of health benefits attributable to walk-
ing and cycling infrastructure (WHO 2014). However,
beyond this we have not been able to identify eco-
nomic evaluations for other urban green space inter-
ventions, such as for urban greenways or the greening
of vacant lots.
This current study offers an economic evaluation of
the potential social return on investment of a new
urban greenway (Connswater Community
Greenway) developed in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Briefly, this involved the provision of a 9 km linear
greenway including 16 km of new or improved walk-
ing and cycling trails. We have previously undertaken
a Cost Utility Analysis on the projected cost-
effectiveness of the new urban greenway (Dallat et al.
2014). In line with the National Institute for Health
and Care Excellence (NICE) Health Technology
Assessment guidelines, we conducted the analysis
from a health-care payer perspective with outcomes
measured in Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs)
(NICE 2008). Using a macro-simulation model, the
study estimated the potential reduction in burden of
cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes mellitus and
cancer that might be anticipated if the local population
became more physically active due to the new urban
greenway. Results showed that if as little as 2% of the
inactive (i.e. not meeting UK government guidance for
physical activity levels) local population were to
become active (i.e. meeting UK government guidance
for physical activity levels), then the savings in health-
care would offset the costs of the walkways, trails,
bridges and lighting, over a 40-year period. This equa-
ted to a total of 184 new cases of chronic diseases and
17 deaths being prevented. All three hypothetical sce-
narios (i.e. 2%, 5% and 10%) were estimated to be cost-
effective, ranging from £4,469/DALY to £18,411/
DALY, which is well below the UK cost-effectiveness
threshold (Woods et al. 2016). Although direct health
gains were predicted to be small for any individual,
summed over an entire population these are substan-
tial. Whilst we were able to conclude that the new
urban greenway should be cost-effective if small
increases in physical activity were achieved, we were
not able to capture the wider benefits of the greenway
beyond health.
Longo et al. (2015) also undertook an economic
modelling study investigating the monetary value of
walking following infrastructure changes due to the
new urban greenway. Using data from a household
survey of local residents (n = 1209) collected prior to
development of the greenway, a contingent valuation
study modelled the economic benefits of walking and
how walking behaviour might be affected by neigh-
bourhood improvements. Using compensating varia-
tion, the study found that a policy to increase
walkability and perceptions of access to shops and
amenities, could lead to an increase in walking of
approximately 36 minutes per person per week. The
monetary value was £13.65 per person per week.
However, the study found that such policies are likely
to reach only around 12% of the inactive population
(i.e. those most in need), and argued that additional
interventions would be needed (i.e. those offering

more than physical changes to the built environment
but which also improved aesthetics or increased con-
nectivity to amenities).
Nevertheless, it is apparent that due to the complex
nature of public health interventions, particularly built
environment interventions, traditional techniques of
cost-effectiveness analysis are not always well-suited to
evaluate public health interventions (Weatherly et al.
2009, NICE 2012b). Instead, there is a need to consider
a full range of outcome measures, going beyond
Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALYs)/DALYs; stake-
holders’ views should be taken into account and the
potential impacts on health inequalities should be
addressed. Hence, a number of alternative methods
have been suggested with two main schools of thought
now emerging (Edwards et al. 2013). One is to in effect
‘stretch’ the current NICE reference case and include
alternative outcome measures such as life-years gained
or cases averted and/or employ the capability
approach which considers the distribution of capabil-
ity across society. This would allow for the inclusion of
equity considerations in economic analyses. The other
school of thought is to abandon the QALY and move
to more welfarist based approaches including social
return on investment analyses. This is where all ben-
efits of an intervention, including social and environ-
mental, are identified, monetised and weighed against
the expected costs. Costs and benefits where possible
are based on market prices as these are usually the best
reflection of their opportunity cost. If the benefits out-
weigh the costs, the intervention is considered good
value for money.
Therefore, we modelled the potential social return
on investment of the new urban greenway interven-
tion to estimate the potential impact, and to fulfil two
purposes. The first of these is to address some of the
limitations of our Cost Utility Analysis and attempt to
better capture its broader value. The second purpose is
to make a contribution to the debate regarding the
most appropriate economic evaluation method for
public health interventions such as urban green
space interventions. Based on findings from the recent
evidence review on urban green space interventions, it
is clear that a focus only on health outcomes would
discount other benefits such as biodiversity, tourism,
and housing prices, and therefore under-value the
economic case for investment.
Methods
Context: The Urban Greenway
The Connswater Community Greenway was a -
£35 million investment in a major urban rejuvenation
project which began in 2010, and construction was
completed in 2016 (http://www.communitygreenway.
co.uk). The greenway was funded by the Big Lottery
CITIES & HEALTH 3
Living Landmarks Award, obtained by a voluntary
organisation, the Eastside Partnership. Its main ele-
ments include: a 9 km linear greenway with 16 km of
new and/or improved foot and cycle paths; 5 km
remediated water courses; 23 new or improved
bridges/crossings; £11 million flood alleviation mea-
sures to protect approximately 1,700 homes from
future flooding; six heritage and tourism trails; two
new children’s playgrounds; two community gardens;
two multi-use games areas; a civic square with facade
and public art works; improvements to four major
parks (13 hectares) along the Greenway route; con-
nection to an existing Greenway (Comber Greenway)
providing 30kms in total of traffic free routes for
walking or cycling and the provision of a wildlife
corridor through planting of various trees, plants,
shrubs and hedging along the Greenway route. The
area in which the greenway is situated included some
of the most deprived areas in Northern Ireland,
including seven electoral wards regarded as within
the 25% most deprived wards in the country. The
greenway spans over 29 electoral wards in total with
a total of approximately 110,600 people living on or
along the proposed greenway. This includes 59%
female, 51% economically active with age ranges
including (7% 16–24 years; 36% 25–44 years; 30%
45–64 years; 27% 65+ years). Figure 1 displays the
Connswater Community Greenway and PARC study
sampling area.
Methodological framework
As highlighted above, few studies have attempted to
aggregate a comprehensive range of benefits from
a health, wellbeing, social and environmental perspec-
tive. Such aggregation must overcome risks of double
counting and inconsistency in component valuations.
Therefore, no agreed-upon methodology currently
exists to value the economic benefit of parks, green-
ways or green infrastructure, and the science of green
space economics is still in its infancy (Savills et al.
2005, Northwest Regional Development Agency
2008, Harnik and Welle 2009, Saraev 2012, Genecon
2012).
We identified, through previous literature and dis-
cussions with the Connswater Community Greenway
Management Committee, seven key areas that the
greenway was aiming to impact upon, including
health, for which there should be sufficient literature
evidence and baseline data to quantify and value each
area. The seven key areas include: (1) land and prop-
erty values; (2) labour employment and productivity;
(3) flood alleviation; (4) climate change; (5) health; (6)
tourism; (7) quality of place (e.g. environmental aes-
thetics, provision of amenities). Figure 2 presents
a conceptual model detailing the intervention and its
consequences in terms of economic evaluation.
4 R. F. HUNTER ET AL.

Figure 1. The Connswater Community Greenway and PARC study sampling area. Legend: Buffers indicate a 5, 10 and 15 minute
walk from the Connswater Community Greenway. Reproduced from Tully et al. (2013). Physical activity and the rejuvenation of
Connswater (PARC study). Protocol for a natural experiment investigating the impact of urban regeneration on public health. BMC
Public Health 13; 774.

Figure 2. Conceptual model representing the intervention and its consequences in terms of economic evaluation and associated
co-benefits.

Briefly, we hypothesise that the greenway provides an opportunities, reduces anti-social behaviour and
amenity to those who wish to be physically active, crime, increases tourism through external visitors to
increases worker productivity, provides job the area, reduces the risk of flooding, mitigates climate

risk through change in travel mode from car to walk-
ing/cycling etc. The monetary value of these are com-
pared with the cost of generating these benefits – the
monetary value of the alternative use of resources –
and the two are compared as the present value of a net
monetary benefit, or return on investment – a ratio of
the present value of cumulative benefits to the present
value of the cumulative costs.
This section takes the following format to detail the
methodology: (1) the most recent and applicable evi-
dence, based on reviews of the literature, pre-
development of the greenway for each key area was
summarised to obtain an ‘effect estimate’. The litera-
ture reviews span several disciplines and so multiple
perspectives have been considered; (2) this was then
applied, where possible, to the most recently available
data for the greenway area; (3) the impact was esti-
mated and monetised using various methods. Briefly,
to value the impact on property values, the additional
direct income to the Northern Ireland economy was
calculated through increased property tax (rates)
based on the assumption that value would accrue in
a given year, once deadweight, attribution and displa-
cement issues have been taken into consideration. The
impacts of flood alleviation works, climate change and
health was estimated by modelling the environmental
and health care cost savings to the local economy. For
labour employment and productivity, cost savings
were estimated through reduced absenteeism rates
for three major employers situated along the greenway
route. To value tourism, previously determined
Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) estimates for urban park
visits within Northern Ireland were used to predict
future number of ‘external’ visits to the greenway.
Finally, to value the impact of the greenway on ‘quality
of place’, the cost savings to the Northern Ireland
economy were estimated through reduced crime.
After the first year, we assumed each monetary
benefit was maintained over 40 years in line with
the expected lifetime of the greenway and we dis-
counted all future costs by 3.5% to calculate their Net
Present Value (NPV). This discount rate is in line
with both the NICE Health Technology Assessment
(National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
(NICE) 2008) and the HM Treasury Green Book
(HM Treasury 2013) guidelines for economic apprai-
sal. Finally, all monetary outcomes were summed to
obtain the total monetary benefit of the greenway and
subtracted from the total cost of the greenway
(£35 m) to calculate the net monetary benefit. We
have used a discount rate of 3.5% which, up until
2012, was the suggested discount rate for public
health interventions from NICE (NICE 2012a). We
are aware that a discount rate of 1.5% has now been
suggested; not without criticism (O’Mahony and
Paulden 2014). However, we have included the 3.5%
CITIES & HEALTH 5
discount rate as it serves as an underestimate of the
value of benefits and thus the social return on invest-
ment. Further, given the scarcity of appropriate and
relevant data, we have not modelled the impact of
displacement, attribution and drop-off, resulting in
somewhat conservative assumptions.
Results (including model assumptions for each
element)
Element 1: land and property values
An extensive body of evidence demonstrates the posi-
tive impact of green infrastructure on nearby property
prices. This effect was first described by Crompton
(2001) as the ‘Proximate Principle’ where the capitali-
zation of parkland is absorbed within the value of
nearby properties. In order to quantify this effect, the
majority of recent studies have availed of Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) data combined with the
Hedonic pricing method. This is a revealed preference
method where the item to be valued is decomposed
into its constituent parts and using regression analysis,
the contributory value of each of its parts is calculated.
Supplementary File 1 (page 1–2) summarises the most
relevant evidence, including from the US and UK on
greenways, parks and green space, in order to obtain
an ‘effect estimate’ or range of effect estimates, for the
percentage increase in the average property price in
east Belfast due to the construction of the greenway.
All studies used a Hedonic pricing method unless
otherwise stated.
The 9 km linear greenway and the parks along the
course of the greenway are hypothesised to have the
most direct effect on nearby property prices. Whilst
the parks underwent considerable enhancements,
including improved access as part of the greenway
project, they are not a new feature and so it is difficult
to predict how much their enhancements alone will
directly impact on nearby property prices. In contrast,
the three river courses that the greenway traverses
underwent significant re-development, including
flood alleviation measures with the removal of rubbish
in the river, improving water quality, and major land-
scaping to improve biodiversity. Previous to this,
houses in the area tended to face away from the
river, which, given its state of disrepair, was not con-
sidered an asset to any property. In addition, approxi-
mately 30.6 acres of new land was procured by Belfast
City Council (local authority), as part of the greenway
project, to allow for the greenway development
(approx. 8% of the total area of the greenway (379
acres)). Therefore, considering the evidence for the
effect of greenways and trails on property prices in
Supplementary File 1 and in particular, the findings by
the UK National Ecosystem assessment for new green
6 R. F. HUNTER ET AL.
space, we estimated conservatively that a property
adjacent to the greenway would increase the value by
approximately 2%, 5% or 10%.
Summary of model assumptions
Data to calculate the net economic benefit of increased
property prices included: (i) number of properties
impacted upon by the greenway; (ii) the average
house price for the area; and, (iii) the rates or property
tax for the area.
(i) Number of properties impacted: Using GIS data,
we calculated the number of properties which lie
within 50 m (2,241 properties), 450 m (18,736 proper-
ties) and 800 m (29,231 properties), respectively, of the
greenway.
(ii) Average house price for the area: The Northern
Ireland housing market, like in the Republic of
Ireland, had just suffered from a crash with house
prices peaking in 2007 and then falling, in some
cases to 50% or less of their original value. Therefore,
to calculate the ‘average’ house price for the area (east
Belfast) we conducted a short assessment of the mar-
ket. Supplementary File 1/Figure 1 shows the average
house price for Northern Ireland, Belfast and east
Belfast, from 2007 to 2014 (representing a 7-year per-
iod prior to development of the greenway), using data
from the Northern Ireland House Price Index report
archive (http://www.rpp.ulster.ac.uk/housing-archive.
php.) We used the average house price to earnings
ratio to provide an indicator of the extent to which
people are willing to get on the property ladder.
Therefore, the average house price was divided by
the average salary. The long term average was approxi-
mately 3.5. In 2007, the average Northern Ireland
house price to earnings ratio was 11.2, with the prop-
erty crash following from 2008. Currently, the ratio for
Northern Ireland is approximately 5.8.
We assumed that if the average house price to earn-
ings ratio should be approximately 3.5 for the housing
market to remain stable, then 3.5 times the average
earnings should give an indication of what the average
‘affordable’ Northern Ireland house price should be
(Supplementary File 1/Figure 1 – green line). Average
Northern Ireland earnings were obtained from the
Northern Ireland Annual Survey of Hours and
Earnings (Department of Enterprise Trade and
Development, Northern Ireland 2013). Clearly the
difference between the actual average house prices
and what the overall market suggested as affordable,
in 2007, were very different. However, it has been
speculated that there is a trend that suggests that
people are spending a greater proportion of household
incomes on property and so economists have argued
that the average house price to earnings ratio for today
may in fact be closer to 5 (Supplementary File 1/Figure
1 – light blue line). This finding, as well as the fact that
average house prices rose steadily in 2014 with
a reported increase in sales, lead experts in housing
to suggest that the Northern Ireland market had ‘bot-
tomed-out’ and was showing slow signs of recovery
(Ulster University 2014).
Therefore, we calculated the average house price for
east Belfast using data for the 6-years pre-development
of the greenway (2009 to 2014). In addition, since the
properties along the greenway are mainly terraced and
semi-detached, we calculated the average house price
for terraced and semi-detached houses combined and
excluded the prices for apartments and detached
homes. In summary, using data from the Northern
Ireland House Price Index quarterly reports, the aver-
age house price for terraced and semi-detached prop-
erties combined in east Belfast from 2009 to 2014, was
£135,398.
(iii) Residential rates for the area: Using the rates
calculator for 2014/15 used by Belfast City Council
(http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/lps/index/property_rating/
rates-calculator.htm), we calculated the annual rates
for the average residential property in east Belfast at
present and for three hypothetical scenarios where
house prices increased by 2, 5 or 10%, as a result of
the greenway and deduced the increased rates paid per
property per scenario (Supplementary File 1/Table 1).
Total monetary value
For each scenario, by multiplying the additional rates
to pay per property by the number of properties within
each ‘adjacency’ specified distance, it was possible to
deduce the net economic benefit of property price
increases, to the Northern Ireland economy, after
one year and over the life time of the greenway
(Supplementary File 1/Table 2). Results showed that
for properties within 50 m of the new greenway, the
value of additional rates if there was as little as a 2%
increase in property prices, was projected to be almost
£43,000, which equates to a discounted value of
£970,857 over the 40-year management and mainte-
nance period of the greenway.
Element 2: labour market employment and
productivity
There is a general consensus within the literature that
green infrastructure, through improving the aesthetics
of an area, can attract inward investment and stimu-
late economic growth. However, there is little consen-
sus as to how to value this impact in isolation from
other factors and how to deal with the issue of dis-
placement (Saraev 2012). Displacement is where
investment attracted to a ‘greener’ area is likely to
have been displaced from elsewhere and therefore
the new green infrastructure may not add any net
benefit to the economy. We have captured at least

one aspect of economic growth and discuss two others
which are hypothesised to be a direct result of the
greenway and have a positive impact on the
Northern Ireland economy. These included: (i)
improved labour productivity within east Belfast; (ii)
work placements for the unemployed during the con-
struction of the greenway; and, (iii) four newly created
jobs on the greenway.
Labour productivity
Better quality green space has been shown to increase
employee productivity, reduce stress and sickness and
lower absenteeism rates (Genecon 2012) due to
improved aesthetics of the working environment and
the enhanced opportunities for exercise leading to
improved physical activity levels and better overall
employee health. Enhancing employee health and
wellbeing is an area of great economic interest for
both the UK government and UK employers since
approximately 175 million days per year are lost due
to sickness (Black 2008). A UK government report
estimated that lost productivity costs in excess of
£60 billion per year and, when including the costs of
sickness absence, this cost totals over £70 billion
per year (Black 2008). Also, the costs of health-
related productivity losses which do not lead to
absence are estimated at £30 billion per year.
Summary of model assumptions
In order to estimate the monetary value of improved
labour productivity it is necessary to know the quan-
tified impact of a green infrastructure investment on
labour productivity and company profit. As yet, the
evidence for both is lacking. However, it is possible
from the literature to predict the reduction in short-
term absenteeism from work which may result from
improved physical activity levels. The average
employee absence in the UK is 6.8 days with 95%
due to short-term sick leave (CBI 2004). The WHO
demonstrated that workplace physical activity inter-
ventions which include 30 minutes of physical activ-
ity per day reduce short-term sick leave by between 6
and 32% (Proper and van Mechelen 2008).
Therefore, for every employee along the greenway
who achieves 30 minutes of physical activity
each day, five days a week, their employer should
benefit from at least 0.4 days gross salary cost
per year (i.e. 6% of 95% of 6.8 days), assuming the
increment can be achieved and can be attributed to
the greenway.
There are three large workplaces (aeronautical
manufacturer, bakery and health centre) located
along the greenway route whose employees will benefit
from direct access to the greenway. We captured data
on the number of employees, their associated annual
gross salary costs and baseline absenteeism rates for
CITIES & HEALTH 7
each workplace. Using the Northern Ireland Annual
Hours and Earnings survey (Department of Enterprise
Trade and Development, Northern Ireland 2013) we
obtained the median full time weekly earnings by
occupation for 2013. We used the weekly earnings
for professional occupations, skilled trade occupations
and process, plant and machine operatives to repre-
sent the weekly earnings for employees from the three
large workplaces (Supplementary File 1/Table 3).
Total monetary value
By multiplying the number of employees by their
median daily salary by 0.4 days, we obtained the total
monetary value of reduced sickness leave for each
workplace for one year. This came to a total of
£125,374.57 (Supplementary File 1/Table 3). This was
then modelled over the 40-year management and
maintenance timeline for the greenway to give a total
monetary value of reduced sickness absence as
£2,833,352.91 (3.5%, 40 years). We believe this to be
a conservative estimate as we have not included the
further positive financial implications for employers
from the impact of increased physical activity as
a result of the greenway in preventing long-term dis-
ability and absenteeism. Given that there are many
more employers in the area, this is assumed to be an
underestimate.
Work placements
Some of the employment benefits as a result of the
greenway can be considered independent of the issue
of displacement. There were two separate contractors
involved in the construction of the greenway. Both
companies were contractually obliged to agree to
a number of social clauses where each contractor
provided 52 and 64 placement weeks, respectively,
for those who are currently unemployed and involved
with the Department for Economy (DfE) Steps to
Work (StW) scheme. Also, 5% of the workforce of
each contractor and first tier subcontractors (with 20
or more employees) had to be formally recognised
paid apprenticeships and each contractor provided
a total of 40 person weeks of employment opportu-
nities for students on a University or College of
Further and Higher Education construction related
course. Obviously, placements like these greatly
enhance the future employability potential of those
involved and had the contractors worked elsewhere,
where the social clauses were not in place, this benefit
may not have been realised.
Each contractor employed a total of 35 contractor/
subcontractor employees each working on the green-
way. Someone on the ‘Steps to Work’ scheme earns an
additional £15.38 per week whilst maintaining their
benefits. On average an apprentice or student working
in construction earns approx. £12,000 per year and
8 R. F. HUNTER ET AL.
assuming there are 52 weeks in any given year this
equates to approx. £231 per week. Therefore, if we
assume that both contractors uphold the social clauses
then the additional monetary amount of the social
clauses should be £56,300.08 (Supplementary File 1/
Table 4). This is the additional amount received and
not their benefits which are transfer payments and
cannot be included as added productivity.
Direct employment on the greenway
On completion of the greenway, the local authority
has agreed to employ two additional full-time war-
dens to supervise the area and the Eastside
Partnership has secured funding for two full-time
educational officers. The educational officers’ salary
will fall between £29,236 and £31,754 and the war-
dens between £19,621 and £21,519 giving an average
of £30,395 per year per educational officer and
£20,570 per year per warden, totalling £101,930 in
additional salaries per year. Assuming their jobs will
be sustained for as long as the Greenway is in exis-
tence, the total monetary value of the additional
salaries will be £2,303,526.64 (3.5%, 40 years).
However, we decided not to include the value of the
work placements or the newly created greenway jobs.
Whilst salaries have been used previously as a way to
measure the value of new employment, we felt they
were not a suitable financial proxy in this instance.
For the work placements, students were paid by the
contractors who were in turn paid out of the initial
£35 million investment. Therefore, the work place-
ments could be viewed as part of the cost of the
greenway as well as a benefit. Similarly, the four
newly created jobs will be paid for by the Northern
Ireland government and so again could be considered
a cost rather than a benefit of the project. The ‘real’
value of the work placements is the employability
potential of the students created and the actual
monetary benefit of the new jobs created is the addi-
tional money these employees will now spend within
the Northern Ireland economy. These outcomes are
very difficult to estimate and subsequently value in
monetary terms.
Total monetary value
The total value of improved labour productivity due to
the greenway is £2,833,352.91.
Element 3: flood alleviation
Flood alleviation formed a major component of the
greenway project as the area is prone to flooding, to
the extent that many of the homes along the rivers are
unable to obtain insurance. In June 2007, 48.3 mm of
rain fell in east Belfast in 1 hour and over 400 proper-
ties were flooded as rivers and drainage systems over
flowed and the following year, in August 2008, 100
properties were flooded. Following these floods, the
Northern Ireland Rivers Agency conducted an assess-
ment of the area and found that the standard of pro-
tection for the east Belfast area was below the
recommended level for urbanised areas and the exist-
ing open channel and culverts did not have sufficient
capacity. Consequently, they commissioned an engi-
neering company to help a business case for the east
Belfast Flood Alleviation Scheme. They developed
a hydraulic model to explore potential flood risk man-
agement options to meet a design standard that pro-
vided protection against a 1% Annual Exceedance
Probability (AEP) of a fluvial event (a 1 in 100 chance
of fluvial flooding in any given year) or a 0.5% AEP of
a tidal event (a 1 in 200 chance of tidal flooding in any
given year) (further details are provided in
Supplementary File 1, page 7).
Results from hydraulic modelling found that the
preferred flood alleviation option for the greenway
area compared to a ‘do nothing’ scenario involved
installing 7 new culverts, 4.1 km of flood walls,
1.2 km of flood embankments and 715 meters of
river diversion works along the greenway. These
works are estimated to prevent 1,741 properties
along the greenway route from future flooding with
a total value of damages avoided of £54.7 M. These
analyses were run over 100 years, using a variable
discount rate of 2.5–3.5%. To bring these analyses in
line with the rest of this report, where benefits are
projected over 40 years and discounted by 3.5%, we
first calculated the average annual damages (AAD)
(£1,947,405.37) avoided by dividing the sum of the
total benefits (£54.7 m) by the summation of the
compounded discount factors (29.863) and applying
the Retail Price Index (RPI) to inflate costs to
present day. We then projected the AAD over
40 years and discounted by 3.5% to derive a monetary
benefit in line with the other elements modelled in this
study. It is important to note that the flood alleviation
scheme would not have taken place had it not been for
the greenway investment; therefore, we have attribu-
ted the benefit to the greenway as the work would not
have been undertaken otherwise.
Total monetary value
The total monetary benefit of the flood alleviation mea-
sures, installed as part of the greenway project, through
avoided flood damages is £42,062,211 (3.5%, 40 years).
Element 4: climate change
Urban green infrastructure can offer many environ-
mental benefits through temperature regulation, carbon
sequestration and storage (Hunter et al. 2019). For
example, green infrastructure can help reduce the

urban island heat effect where buildings and streets
absorb, store and radiate solar energy through shading
and evapo-transpiration. The main purpose of the
greenway was to rejuvenate and enhance derelict land
and create a 9 km linear park for leisure and recreation.
Therefore, whilst 12.4 hectares of new land has been
procured for the greenway, no new green space has
been created (i.e. all land which has been or will be
used for the greenway was previously not built upon).
However, the newly procured and existing land will be
significantly enhanced with a number of plants, hedges,
shrubs and trees planted along the greenway route
which should increase its impact on climate change
but again, it is likely this impact will be minimal and
difficult to value.
However, we hypothesise that the greenway will
have a measurable impact on climate change through
increasing levels of active travel which should reduce
car use in the surrounding areas and consequently
congestion. On completion of the greenway, residents
of east Belfast will have access to over 16 km of cycle
and walkways, facilitating short utilitarian journeys by
bicycle or foot, and consequently decrease car use.
NICE (2012c) recommended that short car trips
should be replaced by walking and cycling, particu-
larly for commuting purposes. A summary of the
available evidence is provided in the Supplementary
File (page 8).
Summary of model assumptions
In line with the percentage change in car trips found in
the Sustainable Travel Towns (−9%) and Smart Travel
(−12%) studies (Cobiac et al. 2009, Sloman et al. 2010),
we used the more conservative estimate of 11% of car
trips of approximately 2 kms in the Connswater and
surrounding area being converted to active travel
trips, as a result of the greenway, from the 2001
London area travel survey. From the Northern
Ireland Annual Traffic Census (Northern Ireland
Roads Service, 2011), two main census points lay
within the Connswater area along two main roads.
These roads are busy commuting routes into Belfast
from the east of the city. As a result of the greenway,
these roads should be the most impacted upon if levels
of active travel increase. The Annual Average Daily
Traffic (ADDT) count is the total volume of vehicle
traffic in a year divided by 365 days. From the
Northern Ireland Annual Traffic Census we found
the ADDT for each of these roads for all vehicles and
for cars alone (Supplementary File 1/Table 5). For the
two roads combined, 37,156 car trips are made daily.
Total monetary value
Assuming 11% of car trips are converted to active
travel trips, would mean approximately 4,087 less car
CITIES & HEALTH 9
trips would be taken each day along these main com-
muting roads. The marginal car costs associated with
congestion and greenhouse gases is calculated as
£0.134/km (Department for Transport 2010).
Assuming each of the 4,087 daily trips are approxi-
mately 2km in length then the total cost savings of
avoided pollution would be approx. £1,095/day or
£399,806/year and over the life time of the greenway,
£9,035,257 (3.5%, 40 years).
Element 5: health
We have previously undertaken a Cost Utility Analysis
to estimate cost savings to the National Health Service
(NHS) and deaths prevented from increased physical
activity levels due to the greenway (Dallat et al. 2014).
A positive association between access to green space,
trails, parks and physical activity has consistently been
found in the literature (Giles-Corti et al. 2005,
Fitzhugh et al. 2010, West and Shores 2011, Starnes
et al. 2011, Lee and Maheswaran 2011). However, the
exact magnitude of the effect of various built environ-
ment attributes on physical activity levels has been less
well investigated except for the quantified effect of
‘walkability’ (i.e. how friendly an area is to walking)
(Saelens et al. 2003, Sallis et al. 2009, Van Dyck et al.
2010, Sundquist et al. 2011). For example, those living
in a high walkable neighbourhood perform up to
10 minutes more of moderate vigorous physical activ-
ity (MVPA)/day than those living in low walkable
neighbourhoods (Sallis et al. 2004), and more walkable
neighbourhoods are associated with lower BMI and
other health benefits (Loo et al. 2017).
Summary of model assumptions
We refer the reader to the introduction section, sup-
plementary File 1/Tables 6 and 7, and Dallat et al.
(2014) for further details.
Total monetary value
We calculated the total cost savings through diseases
prevented for each scenario over 40 years by multi-
plying the number of incident cases prevented
each year, for each disease, by its respective ‘cost per
prevalent case per disease’ and summing over all dis-
eases to obtain the total disease cost savings using the
PREVENT model (Dallat et al. 2014). In summary, if
2%, 5% or 10% of ‘inactive’ Greenway residents at
baseline become ‘active’ as a result of the greenway,
the NHS could save £211,811, £481,179 and £946,088,
respectively (3.5%, 40 years).
We then calculated the value to society of the deaths
prevented by multiplying the total number of deaths
each year, for each disease, by the value of a statistical
life (£1,742,988), as used by the Department for
10 R. F. HUNTER ET AL.
Transport (National Statistics 2013). For scenarios A,
B and C, the value to society of the estimated deaths
prevented amounts to £11,725,212, £27,750,552 and
£51,164,083, respectively (3.5%, 40 years).
Combining both the healthcare cost savings and the
societal value of deaths prevented for scenarios A,
B and C gives total cost savings of £11,937,023,
£28,231,731 and £52,110,171, respectively (3.5%,
40 years). As we have modelled healthcare savings,
we have not included the value of improved quality
of life and so this is likely an underestimate.
Element 6: tourism
It is anticipated that the greenway will become one of
Northern Ireland’s stand-alone tourist attractions and
attract a wide range of visitors to the area. Tourism
and heritage trails were developed along the greenway
route. A new tourist centre was built, funded from
additional funds outside the primary £35 m invest-
ment. In addition, the Titanic Visitor Centre, cur-
rently the number one tourist attraction in Northern
Ireland, has direct access to the greenway via a recently
constructed bridge.
Summary of model assumptions
The greenway benefits realisation plan estimated that
the total number of greenway visits will increase by
30% by 2017 and 50% by 2018. Intercept surveys were
conducted in February 2011 in four key user areas
along the greenway. Route users were interviewed
over four 12 hour periods and manual count data
was also collected. The results from these surveys
provide usage statistics for the greenway at baseline
(Supplementary File 1/Table 8). In 2011, all four
greenway areas were used predominately by local resi-
dents for leisure and active travel purposes.
We assessed the value of the greenway in terms of
providing active travel opportunities and opportu-
nities for recreation for the local residents above,
through the anticipated pollution and health care
cost savings, respectively. Therefore, in order to isolate
the tourism impact of the greenway we first removed
all postcodes for east Belfast (i.e. BT4, BT5 and BT6)
from survey datasets to derive only ‘external’ visits.
Second, we removed all journeys for active travel pur-
poses. Only 2.7% of all users were from outside the
local area and described using the greenway area for
leisure and recreation. At baseline therefore, the
greenway attracted very few ‘external’ visitors. We
assumed that the baseline number of ‘external’ visits
would increase in proportion to the predicted increase
in users, from the greenway benefits realisation plan.
Therefore, the greenway should experience an addi-
tional 12,904 ‘external’ visits by 2017 and 21,507 by
2018 (Supplementary File 1/Table 9).
Total monetary value
A meta-analysis was conducted to predict per-visit
values for different environmental sites using data
from 40,000+ households (in GB only). The reported
costs-per-visit ranged from £1.54 for grasslands to
£5.36 for greenbelt and urban fringe farmlands (Sen
et al. 2014). To estimate the value of these additional
‘external’ visits to the greenway we used previously
derived non-market WTP estimates for visits to urban
parks in Northern Ireland (Hutchinson et al. 1995,
2001). For small urban parks similar in size to the
greenway (Somerset, Hillsborough, Crawfordsburn,
Belvoir) mean WTP estimates per visit ranged from
£0.60 to £1.14. We assumed the additional external
visits achieved by 2018 would be maintained and there-
fore projected the 2018 monetary value over the rest of
the lifetime of the Greenway. We found the net eco-
nomic value of increased external visits ranged from
£270,135 to £496,700 (3.5%, 40 years).
Element 7: quality of place
‘Quality of place’ can be conceptualised in a number
of ways (Saraev 2012). Improved green space can
offer visual amenity benefits and various studies
have assessed people’s WTP for a view according to
various landscape types (Genecon 2012). Educational
benefits have been linked to green infrastructure
(Northwest Regional Development Agency 2008).
Children, who play in natural environments versus
those who play in traditional style playgrounds,
demonstrate more advanced coordination and bal-
ance. Parks and open spaces can increase trust
(Mason 2010). Open green spaces close to housing
act like a continuation of the home environment and
can be shared by local residents for recreation and
leisure (Woolley et al. 2004). This can bring local
communities together, foster social ties and generate
community cohesion. In addition, the regeneration
of poor quality public space and lighting, have both
been linked with reduced crime and improved per-
ception of safety in an area (Woolley et al. 2004).
This then encourages greater use of green spaces
leading to increased natural surveillance with further
improvements in crime and safety.
We consider that the visual amenity value of the
greenway has been reflected in the increase in property
prices valued. Therefore, we valued ‘quality of place’
through the potential benefit from improved safety
and reduced crime through regeneration of the area
and lighting. The length of the greenway has lighting
installed enabling access seven days a week and
24 hours per day. In addition, two full-time wardens
will be employed to patrol the area. Therefore, we
valued the ‘quality of place’ benefit of the greenway
in terms of the expected cost savings to the Northern
 CITIES & HEALTH 11

Ireland economy through anticipated reductions in Total monetary value

crime, mainly due to the installation of lighting, by
By multiplying the total number of burglaries, thefts
following a similar method used in an earlier publica-
and criminal damages by their respective costs we
tion (Painter and Farrington 2001). However, it is
found the total cost of these crimes was £7,086,888.
important to note that this may result in displacement
Assuming these crimes decreased by 21% as a result of
of crime to other areas rather than an overall reduc-
the greenway and its associated lighting, the potential
tion in crime, indeed some evidence suggests that
cost savings to the Northern Ireland economy would
green space can increase crime (Bogar and Beyer
be approximately £1,488,246 in the first year. Over the
2015, Kimpton et al. 2017).
lifetime of the greenway this amounts to
£33,633,036.77 (3.5%, 40 years). No attempt was
made to allow for a possible distance-decay effect
Summary of model assumptions
since no evidence from the literature exists to suggest
We estimated lighting along the greenway would what the size of this effect might be.
decrease property crime (excluding violent crimes)
by 21% overall (based on data from a meta-analysis
by Welsh and Farrington 2008) within the 29 wards Combined monetary benefits for all elements
spanning the greenway. Crime statistics for all 29
To calculate the Benefit Cost Ratio of the greenway we
wards within the greenway were obtained from the
summed all seven monetary benefits, for both a worst
Northern Ireland Neighbourhood Information Service
case and best case scenario, and divided by the total
(NINIS) (Supplementary File 1/Table 10). Ward level
investment cost of the greenway (£35 m). We found
was the smallest area level crime statistics could be
the Benefit Cost Ratio of the greenway to be positive
obtained for and 2012 was the most recently
and range from 2.88 (£100,741,873/£35,000,000) to
available year of data at the pre-development stage.
5.81 (£203,495,306/£35,000,000) (Table 1). The flood
In brief, crime was found to be concentrated within
alleviation scheme was a unique aspect of the green-
a few of the more deprived wards with anti-social
way. It is likely other urban renewal projects will not
behaviour being the most commonly committed
have this component and so we explored removing
crime. It should be noted that this data is based on self-
this element from the analyses. Removing the cost of
reported crime, which is an underestimate of actual
the flood alleviation scheme (£11,695,970) and its
crime.
monetary benefit (£42,062,211) caused the Benefit
The unit costs of crime in England and Wales,
Cost Ratio to remain positive but increase in range
against individuals and households, were available
from 2.52 to 6.93.
from the Economics and Resource Analysis
The Internal Rate of Return is a way to measure and
Research, Development and Statistics Home Office (£
compare the profitability of investments. It is the dis-
2003 prices) (Economics and Resource Analysis
count rate at which the NPV of the costs of an invest-
Research. Development and Statistics Home Office
ment equal the NPV of the benefits (i.e. it is the
2005). Since the equivalent costs are currently not
discount rate at which the investment breaks even).
available for Northern Ireland we used these costs
If the Internal Rate of Return of a project is greater
instead. The average cost for each crime includes the
than the minimum required rate of return (i.e. the cost
costs in anticipation of crime (defensive expenditure
of capital), then generally the project is considered
and insurance administration), the costs as
a good investment. We calculated the Internal Rate
a consequence of crime (the physical and emotional
of Return to be 13% and 29% for the worst and best
impact on victims, value of property stolen, property
case scenario, respectively.
damaged or destroyed, property recovered, victim ser-
vices, lost output, health services) and the costs in
response to crime (criminal justice system). The aver- Table 1. Summary of all Connswater Community Greenway
age cost for burglary is £3,268, theft £844, and criminal monetary benefits in order of descending magnitude.
damage £866. Currently no unit costs are available for Worst Case Scenario Best Case Scenario
anti-social behaviour or drug offences as these can be Land and Property £ 970,856.82 £ 63,324,579.23
Values
difficult to value. Costs for violent crimes are available Health and Wellbeing £ 11,937,023.35 £ 52,110,170.75
but, as mentioned earlier, we decided not to include Flood Alleviation £ 42,062,210.55 £ 42,062,210.55
Quality of Place £ 33,633,036.77 £ 33,633,036.77
violent crime in the analysis due to a lack of evidence Climate Change £ 9,035,257.03 £ 9,035,257.03
from the literature. Using the RPI these costs inflate to: Labour Market £ 2,833,352.91 £ 2,833,352.91
Employment and
burglary £4,508.86, theft £1,164.47 and criminal Productivity
damage £1,194.82, for 2014. A summary of the evi- Tourism £ 270,134.94 £ 496,699.73
dence base is provided in Supplementary File 1 Total £ 100,741,872.37 £ 203,495,306.97
Benefit Cost Ratio 2.88 5.81
(page 14).
12 R. F. HUNTER ET AL.
Sensitivity analyses
Table 2 presents the results from the sensitivity ana-
lyses showing the Benefit Cost Ratios for worst and
best case scenarios for various discount rates and life-
times of the greenway. We found the Benefit Cost
Ratio to be positive and range from 2.28 to 4.55
when the discount rate was set at 5%. Similarly, the
Benefit Cost Ratio was positive, and ranged from 1.01
to 1.87 when the lifetime of the greenway was esti-
mated at 10 years.
Discussion
Previous research has highlighted significant gaps in
the evidence regarding the economic impact of green
space interventions (Hunter et al. 2019). Health econ-
omists have been calling for new methods for identify-
ing spill-over effects when multiple inter-sectoral
outcomes are anticipated from natural experiments
(Deidda et al. 2019), such as green space interventions.
While we have not solved some of the enduring meth-
odological challenges in this field (see later), to the best
of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to
model the social return on investment of a new urban
greenway.
Considering best and worst case scenarios, the
Benefit Cost Ratio of the project ranged from 2.88 to
5.81 and so even the lower bound offers a very favour-
able return on investment. In other words, for every
£1.00 invested in the greenway, there would be
approximately £2.00–6.00 returned. When the dis-
count rate and life time of the greenway were varied
as part of sensitivity analyses, the Benefit Cost Ratio
remained positive and after approximately ten years
the greenway should pay for itself. We found that the
anticipated increase in property values due to the
greenway would likely generate the greatest potential
monetary benefit through increased rate payments
(£1 m – £63 m). The second and third largest mone-
tary benefits would be attributable to health care
(£12 m – £52 m) and avoided flood cost savings
(£42 m) and the fourth due to cost savings from
averted crime (£33 m). These top four monetary ben-
efits far outweighed any of the other benefits.
Table 2. The Benefit Cost Ratios for worst and best case
scenarios for various discount rates and lifetimes of the
greenway.
Benefit Cost Ratio
Worst Case Scenario Best Case Scenario
Discount Rate
0% 5.62
3% 3.13
5% 2.28
Lifetime of the greenway
10 years 1.01
20 years 1.86
30 years 2.42
The accuracy of these results depends greatly on the
accuracy of the data, the underpinning evidence base
and assumptions made. Savings from health care and
avoided flood costs were each derived from previously
validated modelling methods and extensive literature
evidence, while real data were available to estimate the
increase in property values. However, in the context of
hedonic property values there are many confounding
factors that were not accounted for in our analysis, nor
were individual characteristics of the greenway or
nearby property values when applying estimates
from previous research. For example, recent research
has shown that the impact of active transport infra-
structure has heterogeneous effects on nearby proper-
ties, with effects being negative in some instances
(Connolly et al. 2019). Further, to value the improve-
ment in ‘quality of place’ through avoided crime, evi-
dence was available from only one meta-analysis of 13
studies. In addition, crime statistics were obtainable at
ward level as this was the smallest area level at which
they could be obtained. Pope and Pope (2012) suggest
that property values are impacted through reductions
in crime and so we may have double counted values.
Also, we were unable to allow for a distance-decay
effect as little literature exists to suggest what this
might be. Also, although anti-social behaviour was
the predominant crime in each of the wards we did
not include it, as there is currently little evidence on its
monetary value. We were also unable to confidently
include other elements such as the impact of volun-
teering and increased biodiversity. Numerous volun-
teering opportunities will be available which enables
local people to gain work experience and improve
their employability potential. However, we were
unable to predict the number of future volunteers
and therefore their future added value and so this
benefit was not included. We did attempt to model
the social value of biodiversity by applying WTP esti-
mates from previous studies. However, we did not
include this estimation in the final cost-benefit calcu-
lation due to the high likelihood of double-counting.
We surmised that the value of biodiversity was not
independent of the value of increased property prices.
Indeed, others have argued that it is not necessary to
put a monetary value on biodiversity (Spangenberg
and Settele 2010). Finally, we did not include mental
health, mental wellbeing or the value of health-related
quality of life in our modelling of the health impact.
We therefore regard the health impact as a likely
underestimate. However, others may argue that the
estimated health impact is overstated due to sorting
mechanisms potentially muting the health effects. For
11.73
6.35 example, positive health effects will be mitigated if
4.55 individuals with preferences for recreation and active
transportation amenities are sorting into areas near
1.87
3.46 the greenway. Similar issues may also impact on
4.79 labour market estimates. Future analyses should

consider residential location choice when examining
the welfare impacts of such interventions (Klaiber and
Phaneuf 2010, Kuminoff et al. 2013), exploring if
populations have changed or measuring housing turn-
over along the greenway. Whilst the values of the
remaining monetary benefits were much less, with
limited impact on the overall Benefit Cost Ratio result,
we had to use a number of assumptions in their
calculation. To value the impact of the greenway on
climate change, using evidence from some previous
examples in the literature, we assumed 11% of daily
car trips, along two main roads in east Belfast, would
be converted into active travel modes. To value the
impact of improved labour productivity, we first
assumed that all employees from three main work-
places along the greenway route would each perform
an additional 30 minutes of physical activity, five days
per week. This then allowed us to assume, based on
evidence from the WHO, that they would conse-
quently reduce their short-term sickness leave by 6%.
For tourism, we assumed that the number of visitors to
the greenway would increase by 30% by 2017 and 50%
by 2018 in line with the Connswater Community
Greenway benefits realisation plan. Arguably some of
these assumptions could lead to overestimation of the
Benefit Cost Ratio. Equally there were a number of
inevitable benefits of the greenway which we were
unable to value and include in the Benefit Cost Ratio
calculation. These include the potential economic
investment which should be attracted to the greenway
area, the educational value of the greenway for local
schools and colleges, and the value of community
engagement activities along the Greenway route.
To derive the monetary benefit of the greenway, we
aimed to measure the net benefit to the Northern
Ireland economy of the greenway alone. However,
other economic factors should be considered when
interpreting these results. For example, as described
earlier, the Northern Ireland housing market has
shown signs of recovery and so it is likely that some
of the increase in property values might occur due to
the recovering housing market, rather than a direct
influence by the greenway alone. This effect is known
as deadweight. Also, the anticipated crime prevented
through lighting of the greenway might be ‘displaced’
elsewhere and therefore not result in any net economic
benefit to the economy. However, it is difficult to
predict how much deadweight or displacement will
occur and what impact they will have on these results.
As noted in our methodology section and throughout,
given the scarcity of appropriate and relevant data, we
have not modelled the impact of displacement, attri-
bution and drop-off, given the scarcity of appropriate
and relevant data which has resulted in conservative
assumptions. Further, we have applied a discount rate
of 3.5% which also serves as an underestimate of the
value of benefits and thus the return on investment.
CITIES & HEALTH 13
Give the lengthy timeframe when the impact of public
health interventions such as the Greenway may be
realised (Hunter et al. 2019), we will conduct
a future return on investment analysis when the
Greenway has been in situ for at least 2 years, model-
ling actual change, and will include in sensitivity ana-
lyses discount rates from 1.5%-3.5%. Future analyses
will also include broader health benefits such as
health-related quality of life associated with reduced
morbidity and mental wellbeing. As acknowledged
throughout the manuscript, this is a fruitful area for
methodological innovation. We have been transparent
in our reporting, detailing our assumptions and mak-
ing best estimates.
Reflection on the methodology
Examples of individual elements from this analysis can
be found within the literature but few studies have
attempted to combine all the monetary benefits of
green space interventions. Indeed, in the review by
Weatherly et al. (2009), less than a third of studies
attempted to adopt a societal perspective, but this was
largely through the consideration of the productivity
impacts of QALY gains, rather than a cross sectoral
social return on investment. This study therefore pro-
vides one of the first attempts to calculate the total
monetary benefit of a green space intervention. It also
provides a worked example with which to critique and
improve upon to advance the methods in this field.
In contrast to a standardised Cost Utility Analysis,
this method allowed for all the potential benefits of the
greenway, not just health, to be captured. By valuing
outcomes in monetary terms and calculating a Benefit
Cost Ratio, the magnitude of benefit of the study could
be conveyed and potentially used to leverage funding
from bodies outside the health care sector.
However, this approach presented some methodo-
logical difficulties. We had to employ a number of
heterogeneous non-validated methods to measure
and value different benefits of the greenway and, as
already discussed, there were some uncertainties sur-
rounding the data and assumptions used in the analy-
sis. Where possible we have used the most
conservative effect estimates and we were able to
check the effect of varying the discount rate and the
lifetime of the greenway through one-way sensitivity
analyses. However, we were unable to assess the level
of uncertainty in the data and methods used. This
would require finding an appropriate method to assess
and aggregate the uncertainties underlying the com-
ponent parts of the Benefit Cost Ratio. Recently
a framework for extended inventory analysis of the
impact of multi-sector investments for public health
has been proposed but the authors did not formally set
out how uncertainties in production and/or consump-
tion functions across sectors could be aggregated
14 R. F. HUNTER ET AL.
(Walker et al. 2019). Some of the same group had
previously highlighted that another challenging aspect
of such endeavours is the difficulty in identifying sha-
dow prices and opportunity costs across sectors and
how they might be aggregated (Claxton et al. 2007).
We do not pretend that our analysis has solved
many of the enduring challenges identified by
Walker et al. (2019) for those striving for a societal
perspective on public health evaluations. They them-
selves admitted that ‘to define social value using an
explicit social welfare function defined across indivi-
duals and dimensions requires that the full set of
dimensions and the methods for aggregation be
defined ex ante. For this to be useful for decision
makers, each would have to agree that the function is
appropriate and that they will follow its implications
for policy’. Nevertheless, by providing information on
the impacts on different dimensions and sectors, and
presenting results based on a range of valuations, we
can help to inform deliberations between decision
makers responsible for different sectors.
This analysis does not explicitly deal with the issue
of equity. Recently, two groups have offered frame-
works to more formally address the methods for asses-
sing the economic case for public health interventions
that might reduce inequalities, but in each case the
frameworks were focussed on health outcomes and
QALYs and the authors admitted that a limitation
was the usual absence of evidence on the differential
effects of interventions on different groups (McAuley
et al. 2016, Griffin et al. 2019). Beneficiary analysis,
where the likely distributive effects of proposals is
discussed, has recently been suggested as a practical
way forward to address equity and this approach could
readily embrace a more formal and inclusive approach
to economic model building (Bots and van Daalen
2008, Bach et al. 2017). Our finding, by highlighting
all the benefits of the greenway, could be used by key
stakeholders to lead such a discussion. In general, the
greenway lies within a disadvantaged area and should
impact most on the more disadvantaged but some
previous urban renewal projects, over time, have
resulted in gentrification, a potential unwanted side-
effect of the greenway (Atkinson 2002).
This study depicts the greenway as a linear ‘cause
and effect’ intervention which is unrealistic. This
uncomplicated, unidirectional snapshot of the green-
way fails to represent all the underlying processes of
change likely to occur (Hirsch et al. 2007). For exam-
ple, the greenway may result in unintended conse-
quences, such as displaced activity and gentrification,
that are difficult to predict and therefore could not be
accounted for in the current model. In fact, the
greenway is a ‘complex’ intervention aimed at chan-
ging the properties of a complex ‘system’ (i.e. the
greenway population consisting of residents, employ-
ees, commuters, tourists, school pupils etc).
A ‘system’, put simply, is a collection of parts that
interact together and function as a whole (Foster-
Fishman and Behrens 2007). To better understand
how and what changes the greenway will create, we
could have performed such an evaluation from
a ‘systems’ perspective (Shiell et al. 2008). This may
have revealed indirect downstream wellbeing effects
not captured in this analysis, such as changing social
norms in terms of food purchasing behaviour, chil-
dren’s play behaviour, and building social capital
within the community and local schools, all of
which will have life course effects. Further, the notion
that dropoff is inevitable is open to question as the
greenway may contribute to a virtuous cycle of chan-
ging lifestyle behaviours, ongoing investment in
housing, tourism, property values etc.
Conclusion
This social return on investment analysis demon-
strates that the greenway is a worthwhile economic
investment. It should pay for itself between two to six
times, over the life time of the greenway (i.e. for every
£1 invested there is an expected £2.00-£6.00 return). It
should be noted however that some of the data, under-
pinning evidence and assumptions used were uncer-
tain and economic issues such as displacement and
deadweight could not be accounted for. In contrast to
traditional methods of Cost Effectiveness Analysis,
social return on investment analyses allow for
a wider range of outcomes to be captured and produce
an easily understood outcome measure. However, they
also present extra methodological difficulties. In parti-
cular, there is currently no appropriate method with
which to assess and aggregate the uncertainties under-
lying the component parts of the Benefit Cost Ratio.
Finally, future evaluations should aim to consider
similar ‘complex’ interventions aimed at causing sys-
tems level change from a ‘systems’ perspective so as
not to miss important indirect downstream wellbeing
systems effects.
Acknowledgements
This study is published on behalf of the PARC Study team
who include (as well as those listed; in alphabetical order):
Dr Deepti Adlakha (QUB); Dr Chris Cardwell (QUB); Prof
Margaret Cupples (QUB); Prof Michael Donnelly (QUB);
Mr Mick Donnelly (ARUP); Prof Geraint Ellis (QUB);
Dr Aisling Gough (QUB); Prof George Hutchinson
(QUB); Dr Therese Kearney (QUB); Prof Alberto Longo
(QUB); Prof Lindsay Prior (QUB); Dr Helen McAneney
(QUB); Mr Michael Stevenson (QUB).
Disclosure statement
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Funding
The PARC Study was supported by a grant from the
National Prevention Research Initiative (G0802045/1). The
Funding Partners are (in alphabetical order): Alzheimer’s
Research Trust; Alzheimer’s Society; Biotechnology and
Biological Sciences Research Council; British Heart
Foundation; Cancer Research UK; Chief Scientist Office,
Scottish Government Health Directorate; Department of
Health; Diabetes UK; Economic and Social Research
Council; Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council; Health and Social Care Research and
Development Division of the Public Health Agency (HSC
R&D Division); Medical Research Council; The Stroke
Association; Welsh Assembly Government and World
Cancer Research Fund. We also wish to acknowledge fund-
ing from the UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health
Northern Ireland. MATD was funded by a PhD studentship
from the Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland.
The authors would like to acknowledge the partners and
stakeholders involved in the PARC Study including the
Eastside Partnership; Belfast City Council; Department of
Health, Social Services and Public Safety; Department for
Communities; Department of the Environment;
Department for Infrastructure; Belfast Health and Social
Care trust; East Belfast Community Development Agency;
Sport Northern Ireland; Belfast Healthy Cities; Sustrans;
Public Health Agency; Ordnance Survey NI and local resi-
dents of the Connswater Community Greenway population.
Notes on contributors
Ruth F. Hunter is a Reader (Associate Professor) in Public
Health at the Centre for Public Health at Queen’s University
Belfast. Her research has focused on the built environment,
urban health and non-communicable disease (NCD) pre-
vention. She has particular expertise in urban green space
interventions, natural experiment evaluations, and com-
plexity science methods including systems thinking, agent-
based modelling, and social and stakeholder network
analysis.
Mary A.T. Dallat is a Public Health Speciality Registrar
currently based at the Public Health Agency in Northern
Ireland. At the start of her public health training she under-
took a PhD which was primarily focused on applying tradi-
tional techniques of health economic analysis to evaluate
public health interventions, particularly physical activity
interventions.
Mark A. Tully a Professor of Public Health and Director of
the Institute of Mental Health Sciences at Ulster University.
He is also the Director of the Northern Ireland Public
Health Research Network. His research focuses on addres-
sing population levels of physical inactivity and sedentary
behaviour, which are major causes of poor physical and
mental wellbeing. His research includes interventions tar-
geting older adults and socio-economically disadvantaged
communities, using a wide range of methodological
approaches.
Leonie Heron is a PhD student at the Centre for Public
Health, Queen's University Belfast. Her PhD focuses on
the health economics of physical inactivity and sedentary
behaviour, including the economic evaluation of interven-
tions. Her background is in human biology (BSc) and epi-
demiology (MSc) and she is the communications lead on the
ISPAH Early Career Network committee.
CITIES & HEALTH 15
Ciaran O’Neill is Professor of Health Economics at Queen’s
University Belfast and Adjunct Professor of Health
Economics at the National University of Ireland, Galway.
His research interests include the analysis of health care
disparities, policy and technology evaluation, and the mea-
surement and analysis of health preferences. He is a teacher
and researcher with over 30 years experience in the field of
health and has taught and supervised students at all levels of
their university education.
Frank Kee is a Professor of Public Health Medicine and
clinical epidemiologist who directs the Centre for Public
Health at Queen’s University Belfast. He has also worked
with the NHS public health service as a consultant for 30
years and has served on numerous UKRI and NIHR public
health scientific advisory panels.
ORCID
Frank Kee http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0606-8167
References
Arem, H., et al., 2015. Leisure time physical activity and
mortality: a detailed pooled analysis of the dose-response
relationship. JAMA internal medicine, 175 (6), 959–967.
doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0533.
Atkinson, R. Does gentrification help or harm urban neigh-
bourhoods?: an assessment of the evidence-base in the
context of the new urban agenda (CNR paper 5); 2002;
Urban Studies.
Bach, M., et al., 2017. Participatory epidemiology: the con-
tribution of participatory research to epidemiology.
Emerging themes in epidemiology, 14, 2. doi:10.1186/
s12982-017-0056-4
Beatley, T. and Newman, P., 2013. Biophilic cities are sus-
tainable, resilient cities. Sustainability, 5, 3328–3345.
Bird, E., et al. Health economic assessment of walking and
cycling interventions in the physical environment:
interim findings from the iConnect study. In: South
West Public Health Scientific Conference, Weston-
Super-Mare, UK, 5 February 2014. Available from:
http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/23015
Black, C., 2008. Working for a healthier tomorrow. London:
The Stationery Office (TSO).
Bogar, S. and Beyer, K.M., 2015. Green space, violence, and
crime: A systematic review. Trauma, violence & abuse, 1,
12. doi:10.1177/1524838015576412
Bots, P.W.G. and van Daalen, E., 2008. Participatory model
construction and model use in natural resource manage-
ment: A framework for reflection. Systemic Practice and
Action Research, 21, 389–407. doi:10.1007/s11213-008-
9108-6
Claxton, K.P., Sculpher, M.J., and Culyer, A.J. Mark versus
Luke? Appropriate methods for the evaluation of public
health interventions. Centre for Health Economics
Research Paper 31 200, University of York. 2007.
Cobiac, L.J., Vos, T., and Barendregt, J.J., 2009. Cost-
effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activ-
ity: a modelling study. PLoS medicine, 6 (7), e1000110.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000110.
Cohen, D.A., et al., 2012. Impact and cost-effectiveness of
family Fitness Zones: a natural experiment in urban pub-
lic parks. Health & place, 18, 39–45.
Cohen, D.A., et al., 2013. Physical activity in parks:
A randomized controlled trial using community
16 R. F. HUNTER ET AL.
engagement. American journal of preventive medicine, 45,
590–597.
Cohen, D.A., et al., 2014. The potential for pocket parks to
increase physical activity. American journal of health pro-
motion: AJHP, 28, S19–26.
Confederation of British Industry (CBI), 2004. The lost
billions: 2003 CBI absence and labour turnover survey.
London: CBI Publications.
Connolly, C., et al., 2019. Capitalization of interconnected
active transportation infrastructure. Landscape and urban
planning, 182, 67. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.09.010
Crompton, J.L., 2001. Perceptions of how the presence of
greenway trails affects the value of proximate properties.
Journal of park and recreation administration, 19 (3),
114–132.
Dallat, M.A., et al., 2014. Urban greenways have the poten-
tial to increase physical activity levels cost-effectively.
European journal of public health, 24, 190–195.
doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckt035
Deidda, M., et al., 2019. A framework for conducting eco-
nomic evaluations alongside natural experiments. Social
science & medicine (1982), 220, 353–361.
Department for Transport. Transport Analysis Guidance.
2010. Available at: www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/
expert/unit3.9.5.php#04
Department of Enterprise Trade and Development,
Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Annual Survey of
Hours and Earnings, 2013. Available at: https://www.
nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/NI-
ASHE-2013-Bulletin.pdf
Economics and Resource Analysis Research. Development
and Statistics Home Office. The economic and social
costs of crime against individuals and households 2003/
04; 2005.
Edwards, R.T., Charles, J.M., and Lloyd-Williams, H., 2013.
Public health economics: a systematic review of guidance
for the economic evaluation of public health interventions
and discussion of key methodological issues. BMC public
health, 13 (1), 1001. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-1001.
Fitzhugh, E.C., Bassett, D.R., Jr, and Evans, M.F., 2010.
Urban trails and physical activity: a natural experiment.
American journal of preventive medicine, 39 (3), 259–262.
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2010.05.010.
Foster-Fishman, P.G. and Behrens, T.R., 2007. Systems
change reborn: rethinking our theories, methods, and
efforts in human services reform and community-based
change. American journal of community psychology, 39,
191–196. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9104-5
Frumkin, H., et al., 2017. Nature contact and human health:
A research agenda. Environmental health perspectives,
125 (7), 075001. doi:10.1289/EHP1663.
Gascon, M., et al., 2016. Residential green spaces and mor-
tality: a systematic review. Environment international, 86,
60–67.
Genecon, L.L.P. Building natural value for sustainable eco-
nomic development: the green infrastructure valuation
toolkit user guide (version 1.3); 2012. Available at:
https://ecosystemsknowledge.net/green-infrastructure-
valuation-toolkit-gi-val
Giles-Corti, B., et al., 2005. Increasing walking: how impor-
tant is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open
space? American journal of preventive medicine, 28 (2
Suppl 2), 169–176. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.018.
Griffin, S., et al., 2019. Evaluation of intervention impact on
health inequality for resource allocation. Medical decision
making: an international journal of the Society for Medical
Decision Making, 39 (3), 171–182.
Harnik, P. and Welle, B., 2009. Measuring the economic
value of a city park system. Washington DC, US: The
Trust for Public Land.
Hirsch, G.B., Levine, R., and Miller, R.L., 2007. Using system
dynamics modeling to understand the impact of social
change initiatives. American journal of community psy-
chology, 39, 239–253. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9114-3
HM Treasury, 2013. The Green Book: appraisal and
Evaluation in Central Government. Available at: https://
www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-
appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent last
accessed 23 July 2019.
Hunter, R.F., et al., 2019. Environmental, health, wellbeing,
social and equity effects of urban green space interven-
tions: A meta-narrative evidence synthesis. Environment
international, 130, 104923. doi:10.1016/j.
envint.2019.104923
Hutchinson, G., et al., 2001. Parametric and non-parametric
estimates of willingness to pay for forest recreation in
Northern Ireland: A discrete choice contingent valuation
study with follow-ups. Journal of agricultural economics,
52 (1), 104–122.
Hutchinson, G., Davis, J., and Chilton, S., 1995. Theoretical
and spatial limits to the value of rural environmental
benefits: evidence from the Forestry Sector. Journal of
rural studies, 11 (4), 397–404.
Kimpton, A., Corcoran, J., and Wickes, R., 2017. Greenspace
and crime: an analysis of greenspace types, neighboring
composition, and the temporal dimensions of crime. The
Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 54 (3),
303–337. doi:10.1177/0022427816666309.
Klaiber, H.A. and Phaneuf, D.J., 2010. Valuing open space in
a residential sorting model of the Twin Cities. Journal of
environmental economics and management, 60 (2), 57–77.
doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2010.05.002.
Kuminoff, N.V., Smith, V.K., and Timmins, C., 2013. The
new economics of equilibrium sorting and policy evalua-
tion using housing markets. Journal of economic litera-
ture, 51 (4), 1007–1062. doi:10.1257/jel.51.4.1007.
Kuo, F., 2015. How might contact with nature promote
human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible
central pathway. Frontiers of Psychology, 25, 1093.
Lee, A.C.K. and Maheswaran, R., 2011. The health benefits
of urban green spaces: a review of the evidence. Journal of
public health, 33, 212–222. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdq068
Longo, A., et al., 2015. Demand response to improved walk-
ing infrastructure: A study into the economics of walking
and health behaviour change. Social science & medicine
(1982), 143, 107–116. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.033
Loo, C.K., et al., 2017. Association between neighbourhood
walkability and metabolic risk factors influenced by phy-
sical activity: a cross-sectional study of adults in Toronto,
Canada. BMJ open, 7 (4), e013889. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-
2016-013889.
Mason, S.G., 2010. Can community design build trust?
A comparative study of design factors in Boise, Idaho
neighborhoods’. Cities, 27 (6), 456–465. doi:10.1016/J.
CITIES.2010.07.003.
McAuley, A., et al., 2016. Informing investment to
reduce inequalities: A modelling approach. PloS one,
11 (8), e0159256. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159256.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE),
2008. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal.
London: NICE.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
How should NICE assess future costs and health
benefits?, 2012a. Available from: http://www.nice.org.

uk/ newsroom /fea tures/ HowSho uld NICEAsses s
FutureCostsAndHealthBenefits.jsp.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE),
2012b. Methods for the development of NICE public health
guidance. third ed. London: NICE. Available from:
https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg4/chapter/
introduction.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE),
2012c. Physical activity: walking and cycling. London:
NICE. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/gui
dance/ph41/chapter/1-Recommendations.
National Statistics. Reported road casualties Great Britain:
annual report, 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/sta
tistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-
report-2013 (last accessed 24 July 2019).
Northern Ireland Roads Service, 2011. Traffic and travel
information 2011 incorporating annual traffic census and
vehicle kilometres of travel. UK: Department for
Infrastructure.
Northwest Regional Development Agency, 2008. The eco-
nomic benefits of green infrastructure – an assessment
framework. UK: Northwest Development Agency.
O’Mahony, J.F. and Paulden, M., 2014. NICE’s selective
application of differential discounting: ambiguous, incon-
sistent, and unjustified. Value in Health, 17 (5), 493–496.
Painter, K.A. and Farrington, D.P., 2001. The financial ben-
efits of improved street lighting, based on crime
reduction. Lighting research & technology (London,
England: 2001), 33 (1), 3–10. doi:10.1177/136578280103
300102.
Pope, D.G. and Pope, J.C., 2012. Crime and property values:
evidence from the 1990s crime drop. Regional science and
urban economics, 42 (1–2), 177–188. doi:10.1016/j.
regsciurbeco.2011.08.008.
Proper, K. and van Mechelen, W., 2008. Effectiveness and
economic impact of worksite interventions to promote
physical activity and healthy diet. Geneva: WHO, 1–63.
Roué Le Gall, A., et al. (2017) Causal pathway model
between green spaces and health: levers for decision
making. In: 14th ISUH conference on urban health,
health equity: the new urban agenda and sustainable
development goals, 25–29 September 2017 Coimbra,
Portugal.
Saelens, B.E., et al., 2003. Neighborhood-based differ-
ences in physical activity: an environment scale
evaluation. American journal of public health, 93 (9),
1552–1558.
Sallis, J.F., et al., 2004. Active transportation and physical
activity: opportunities for collaboration on transportation
and public health research. Transp Res Part A Policy
Pract, 38 (4), 249–268. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2003.11.003.
Sallis, J.F., et al., 2009. Neighborhood built environment and
income: examining multiple health outcomes. Social
science & medicine (1982), 68 (7), 1285–1293.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.017.
Saraev, V., 2012. Economic benefits of greenspace.
Edinburgh: Forestry Commission Research report.
Savills, F., et al., 2015. Does money grow on trees?
Sen, A., et al., 2014. Economic assessment of the recreational
value of ecosystems: methodological development and
national and local application. Environmental and
Resource Economics, 57 (2), 233–249. doi:10.1007/
s10640-013-9666-7.
Shiell, A., Hawe, P., and Gold, L., 2008. Complex interven-
tions or complex systems? Implications for health eco-
nomic evaluation. BMJ, 336, 1281–1283.
CITIES & HEALTH 17
Sloman, L., et al., 2010. The effects of smarter choice pro-
grammes in the sustainable travel towns: summary Report.
London: Department for Transport.
Spangenberg, J.H. and Settele, J., 2010. Precisely incor-
rect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services.
Ecological Complexity, 7 (3), 327–337. doi:10.1016/J.
ECOCOM.2010.04.007.
Starnes, H.A., et al., 2011. Trails and physical activity: a
review. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 8 (8),
1160–1174.
Sundquist, K., et al., 2011. Neighborhood walkability, phy-
sical activity, and walking behavior: the Swedish
Neighborhood and Physical Activity (SNAP) study.
Social science & medicine (1982), 72 (8), 1266–1273.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.004.
Tully, M.A., et al., 2013. Physical Activity and the
Rejuvenation of Connswater (PARC Study): protocol
for a natural experiment investigating the impact of
urban regeneration on public health. BMC Public Health
13, 774. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-774.
Twohig-Bennett, C. and Jones, A., 2018. The health benefits
of the great outdoors: A systematic review and
meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health
outcomes. Environmental research, 166, 628–637.
doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.030
Ulster University. Quarterly house price index; 2014.
https://www.ulster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/
103033/q1-2014.pdf (last accessed 24 July 2019).
UN Sustainable Development Goals. http://www.un.org/sus
tainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
United Nations, 2015. Transforming our World: the 2030
Agenda for sustainable development A/RES/70/1.
New York: UN.
United Nations General Assembly, 2016. New Urban
Agenda: quito declaration on sustainable cities and
human settlements for all (71/256). New York, NY:
United Nations.
Van Dyck, D., et al., 2010. Neighborhood SES and walk-
ability are related to physical activity behavior in Belgian
adults. Preventive medicine, 50 (Suppl 1), S74–9.
doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.027.
Walker, S., et al., 2019. Striving for a societal perspective:
A framework for economic evaluations when costs and
effects fall on multiple sectors and decision makers.
Applied health economics and health policy, 17, 577–590.
doi:10.1007/s40258-019-00481-8
Weatherly, H., et al., 2009. Methods for assessing the
cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: key chal-
lenges and recommendations. Health policy (Amsterdam,
Netherlands), 93 (2–3), 85–92. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.
07.012.
Welsh, B. and Farrington, D., 2008. Effects of improved
street lighting on crime. Campbell systematic reviews, 13.
doi:10.4073/csr.2008.13.
West, S.T. and Shores, K.A., 2011. The impacts of building
a greenway on proximate resident’s physical activity.
Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 8 (8), 1092–1097.
WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2014. Health economic
assessment tools (HEAT) for walking and for cycling.
Methodology and user guide. Economic assessment of
transport infrastructure and policies. 2014 Update. http://
www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-
health/Transport-and-health/publications/2014/health-eco
nomic-assessment-tools-heat-for-walking-and-for-cycling.-
methodology-and-user-guide.-economic-assessment-of-
transport-infrastructure-and-policies.-2014-update
18 R. F. HUNTER ET AL.
WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2016. Urban green spaces
and health. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Denmark:
Copenhagen.
WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2017a. Urban green space
interventions and health. WHO Regional Office for
Europe. Denmark: Copenhagen.
WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2017b. Action brief on
urban green spaces. WHO Regional Office for Europe.
Denmark: Copenhagen.
Woods, B., et al., 2016. Country-level cost-effectiveness
thresholds: initial estimates and the need for further
research. Value in health: the journal of the
International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and
Outcomes Research, 19 (8), 929–935. doi:10.1016/j.jval.
2016.02.017.
Woolley, H., et al., 2004. The value of public space. London:
Commission for Architecture and Built Environment
(CABE).